A brilliant piece by Krauthammer, as usual. The punch line: "How ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God. What could be more elegant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine than a planet with millions of life forms, distinct and yet interactive, all ultimately derived from accumulated variations in a single double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give us mollusks and mice, Newton and Einstein? Even if it did give us the Kansas State Board of Education, too."

"Let's be clear. Intelligent design may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud. It is a self-enclosed, tautological "theory" whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge -- in this case, evolution -- they are to be filled by God."

I believe that if I'm lucky enough to get to heaven I'll be allowed to know more about how G-d designed the human species, and that that explanation will perfectly reconcile both the words in the Bible and the theory of natural selection. Once it is revealed, the truth will cause men to say "of course, why didn't I see it sooner."

5
posted on 11/17/2005 9:38:34 PM PST
by Steely Tom
(Fortunately, the Bill of Rights doesn't include the word 'is'.)

Jesus paid your sin debt to the Father on the cross. He takes your sins, you take His righteousness. Why go to hell? Why? Jesus loves you! Open your hearts!

"...a high-tech factory, complete with artificial languages and decoding systems; central memory banks that store and retrieve impressive amounts of information; precision control systems that regulate the automatic assembly of components; proof-reading and quality control mechanisms that safeguard against errors; assembly systems that use principles of prefabrication and modular construction; and a complete replication system that allows the organism to duplicate itself at bewildering speeds."

7
posted on 11/17/2005 9:54:27 PM PST
by ROTB
(Christianity is like Fight Club, except 1) you're SUPPOSED to talk about it 2) You fight EVERY night)

I usually agree with Krauthammer 1000 percent. But I think he's gotten things a little ass backwards here. First of all, neither Newton nor Einstien were evolutionists. As Christians they believed in an intelligent designer; i.e, God. Very few, possibly no evolutionists are devout Christians. It is in fact the evolutionist, the enemy of intelligent design, who makes himself the enemy of God.

I've thought from the beginning of this debate, that those of faith who need to have the Science Seal of Approval on their beliefs are so denigrating the very idea of faith.

Science is science. I'm an avid naturalist.

Faith is faith. I'm a firm believer, and lover of God (because He loved me first).

I don't need to have some validation from the scientific community to confirm my relationship with God.

God gave us many things. Inquiring minds, a vast history, and complex biologies are just a few of his gifts.

Many religious people feel that their faith is denigrated by scientists, as indeed it is many times; trying to shoehorn one's beliefs into a scientific framework will not assuage critics, however, and only serves to belittle the faith which one is trying to forward.

"First of all, neither Newton nor Einstien were evolutionists. As Christians they believed in an intelligent designer; i.e, God. Very few, possibly no evolutionists are devout Christians. It is in fact the evolutionist, the enemy of intelligent design, who makes himself the enemy of God."

I don't think you understood the article. The notion of intelligent design is not inconsistent with evolution. But one is faith, and one is science. Actually, many evolutionists are devout Christians, because they are not so arrogant as to argue that their interpretation of Scripture must be correct even when faced with strong evidence to the contrary.

10
posted on 11/17/2005 9:57:52 PM PST
by BackInBlack
("The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice.")

I find it interesting that he claims someone has made the theory of evolution the 'enemy of God'. Since Darwinism is the enemy of faith and the enemy of truth, it makes itself the inherent the enemy of God.

If and when 'evolution' is openly and plainly taught with the clear disclaimer that it is an unobservable theory, impossible to recreate in a laboratory, then it will be the enemy of nothing. But since they teach it as doctrine in public schools, colleges and the media, as though the theory is not controversial in the science community, it is ipso facto an enemy of God, as are all lies that pretend to be truth.

If and when 'evolution' is openly and plainly taught with the clear disclaimer that it is an unobservable theory, impossible to recreate in a laboratory, then it will be the enemy of nothing. But since they teach it as doctrine in public schools, colleges and the media, as though the theory is not controversial in the science community, it is ipso facto an enemy of God, as are all lies that pretend to be truth.

Hi The Crusader, I like you am a sceptic - as are all good scientists. I like you am also a person of faith, and shall defend that always. I have had my struggles with the Theory of Evolution, and have always maintained that it needs to be discussed as just that - a theory.

However, I ask you this question, as I ask myself: If evolution is a false theory, why are we all waiting on pins and needles to see if the "bird flu" is going to evolve to the point where humans can pass it freely to each other, without any birds being involved at all?

It is in fact the evolutionist, the enemy of intelligent design, who makes himself the enemy of God.

Very good points, Kimosabe.

FWIW:

Science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

How can you get me saying 'einstein was not a scientist' out of the sentence "The only reason an evolutionist would be the enemy of intelligent design is because it flies in the face of what is normal scientific methods."

I'd like to see the leaps of logic that went into that conclusion.

24
posted on 11/17/2005 10:22:01 PM PST
by flashbunny
(LOCKBOX: Where most republicans keep their gonads after they arrive in Washington D.C.)

Well Einstein believed that the universe was intelligently designed. Einstein was therefore a believer in Intelligent Design.

You stated that intelligent design flies in the face of what is normal scientific methods. Therefore Einstein, who believed in intelligent design and insisted that science without religion is lame, must not have been a true scientist. He was just one of those unscientific intelligent design nutcakes.

First of all, neither Newton nor Einstien were evolutionists. As Christians they believed in an intelligent designer; i.e, God.

Einstein was Jewish, not Christian. ....and Krauthammer acknowledged in the article that they both believed in God. Krauthammer's central points are that A) belief in God and acknowledging the scientific validity of natural selection are not incompatible, and B) belief in God and recognizing that "intelligent design" is junk science are not incompatible.

Krauthammer's central points are that A) belief in God and acknowledging the scientific validity of natural selection are not incompatible, and B) belief in God and recognizing that "intelligent design" is junk science are not incompatible.

The bird flu virus is not evolving. It's mutating. It's a virus that has been around for a long time and is changing slightly. There are plenty of examples of mutation in biology which ARE observable. Evolution is a separate matter. It is a theory. Despite Darwin's title "Origin of the Species", no new species has been shown to originate from another.

In order to justify the farce that intelligent design is science, Kansas had to corrupt the very definition of science, dropping the phrase " natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us," thus unmistakably implying -- by fiat of definition, no less -- that the supernatural is an integral part of science. This is an insult both to religion and science.

Krauthammer's definition of "God" may not be the same as the definition given by people who think that Godless purposeless evolution is incompatible with their theological position.

Perhaps Godless purposeless evolutionary philosophy is not incompatible with the God that he believes in, but he does not speak for all Christians or all Jews on the matter. It is not incompatible with his God, but it may be incompatible with someone else's.

"The bird flu virus is not evolving. It's mutating. It's a virus that has been around for a long time and is changing slightly. There are plenty of examples of mutation in biology which ARE observable. Evolution is a separate matter. It is a theory."

I don't think you know the first thing about evolution. Evolution occurs through a series of mutations. If a mutation is beneficial to the survival of the species, it is more likely to be passed on and propagate.

And do you know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory? A hypothesis is basically a guess that's waiting to be tested thoroughly. It becomes a theory when it's been tested numerous times and there's wide scientific acceptance of its validity. In this context, "It's just a theory" is layman's talk for "I have no idea what I'm talking about."

33
posted on 11/17/2005 10:42:25 PM PST
by BackInBlack
("The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice.")

No, it says that God is a geometer. It is not a "god of the gaps" theory. Rather it says that the Darwinism mechanism does not properly represent the patterns we see. Certainly it is true if we restrict ourselves to what Darwin said. The neo-darwinists have spliced that into a broader theory.

What is with this ridculous and indeed blasphemous idea that explaning something through natural phenomena is to preclude any involvement by God? This "God of the gaps" theory suggests that God has nothing to do with the natural functioning of things, only the unnatural functioning of things. I wonder how people who claim to be religious can put their faith in such a limited God.

36
posted on 11/17/2005 10:48:29 PM PST
by BackInBlack
("The act of defending any of the cardinal virtues has today all the exhilaration of a vice.")

" Well Einstein believed that the universe was intelligently designed. Einstein was therefore a believer in Intelligent Design."

Ugh.

Einstein believed the laws of the universe were intelligently designed.

If he saw what currently passed as the theory of "intelligent design", he would have either shook his head in digust or laughed at it. And in this case it refers to EVOLUTION, not the creation of the universe (see how this discussion started before you changed the subject to the universe). To repeat: the 'intelligent design' aspect relates to evolution, since it was a discussion about darwinism vs intelligent design. NOT the creation of the universe.

So try staying on subject, ok?

You know what else einstein said? It's one of my favorite quotes:

" If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants."

Meaning he was able to do what he did because other people before him asked questions and did the work.

Now go back to the world before einstein - to the time of isaac newton. Imagine if he did basically what the intelligent design advocates wanted to do: explain the "gaps" by them being the hand of God, and not messing with any theories that might run contrary to the bible.

Why did the apple fall? Will of God.

Momentum? Angular Momentum? The light spectrum? All "wills of God", and therefore no reason to delve any further.

When we fail to ask question, we fail to take the opportunity to learn. That's why passing ID off as a scienctific theory is bad. Saying "Well, God did this", either when you can't explain something, or when you're afraid the other answer might conflict with your strict biblical view of the world, destroys great opportunities to ask questions and to learn.

Krauthammer said it: I.D. is nice for a theology class, but it doesn't belong in a science class.

37
posted on 11/17/2005 10:49:23 PM PST
by flashbunny
(LOCKBOX: Where most republicans keep their gonads after they arrive in Washington D.C.)

"A "theory" that violates the most basic requirement of anything pretending to be science -- that it be empirically disprovable."

Krauthammer conveniently uses the negative here. Science's role, traditionally, has been to prove an assumption. Through reproducable experiment or direct observation. You develop a "theory" then test it one way or another. Darwinism has failed here. So now, according to Krauthammer, our role is to "disprove" something, be it Darwinism or ID.

"I don't think you know the first thing about evolution. Evolution occurs through a series of mutations. If a mutation is beneficial to the survival of the species, it is more likely to be passed on and propagate."

Oh I know a little about evolution. Mutations occur and can be observed. They happen on a cellular level all the time. The tumor in a cancer patient is still human tissue. Evolution is the creation of new species. This has not been proven

Mutation - any change in the DNA of an organism...beneficial mutations may increase in the population due to natural selection...

Evolution - the gradual process of genetic change that occurs in populations of organisms..."

I'm not sure what this proves. I agree with both definitions, sort of. These defintions, though, inject a hint of Darwinism, but I'll grant them. I agree DNA changes occur (mutation). I'll agree that the above is a definition of evolution. Does the dictionary tell you that one results in the other? And could you look up species while you're at it?

I agree with both definitions, sort of. These defintions, though, inject a hint of Darwinism

I'm always amazed at those who will not see what is right in front of their noses. Both definitions "inject a hint of Darwinism" because one leads to the other. Beneficial mutations are preserved in populations. Over considerable time, an entirely new organism may emerge that is more biologically "fit" than its predecessor.

And no, I will not look up "species" for you. Do a Google search...or write your own darned dictionary, as you seem to know everything anyway.

"A hypothesis is what you test one way or the other; a theory is what happens what that hypothesis has been tested repeatedly and widely accepted by scientists as true."

You don't say whether these repeated tests need to have proven anything. Regarding evolution, they certainly haven't proven the creation of any new species. So in order to go from hypothesis to theory, you need a wide acceptance of scientists, not actual proof. So there's a political element?

If and when 'evolution' is openly and plainly taught with the clear disclaimer that it is an unobservable theory, impossible to recreate in a laboratory, then it will be the enemy of nothing. But since they teach it as doctrine in public schools, colleges and the media, as though the theory is not controversial in the science community, it is ipso facto an enemy of God, as are all lies that pretend to be truth.

The theory of evolution is a theory, that is,

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

It is not unobservable theory, as there is no such thing. There are facts and observations (also known as data; see the primate skulls, below, for some excellent, and very photogenic, examples). There are also hypotheses and theories. Observations and facts lead to hypotheses which can be tested. With repeated testing, and confirmation at each test, you can end up with a well-supported theory. That is what the theory of evolution is, a well-supported theory. It has withstood 150 years of testing, including testing by fields of investigation which did not even exist 150 years ago.

"When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence" [from an NSF abstract, cited in RadioAstronomers's post #27 on another thread].

You, on the other hand, seem to be arguing from:

Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith

Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof

From your posts, it would seem that you are promoting a specific religious belief, and hoping to include it in science classes--where it clearly does not belong.

Finally, you write "[evolution] is ipso facto an enemy of God, as are all lies that pretend to be truth."

I am sure you will not agree with this, but I would put ID, not evolution, in this category. ID is creation science with the serial numbers filed off, hoping nobody will notice. Although a form of ID has been around for millennia, the current push for ID was developed in the late 1980s when CS was removed from schools by a Supreme Court decision. It is CS flying under the radar, attempting to pass as science. It is promulgated by political means, not by scientific means, and the recent court case in Dover exposed some of the lies behind ID. From all of this, what am I to think, other than that ID is inherently dishonest?

"I'm always amazed at those who will not see what is right in front of their noses. Both definitions "inject a hint of Darwinism" because one leads to the other."

Right in front of our noses? Why do archeologists keep digging for bones and missing links if it's all so self-evident? "One leads to another"? That's the whole leap in assumption that we're arguing about. I guess I need to study Webster's more thoroughly for a more in-depth analysis of this controversy.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.